their families who stand to benefit the most from this comprehensive legislation that we're offering. and with their alternative bill, they have now stripped -- have proposed to strip away life-changing programs for veterans who are looking to take the skills they learned on the battlefield to the boardrooms. they have with this alternative decided to halt the expansion of opportunities for our caregivers who are integral to the health among these and many other examples of the republican effort to derail this landmark legislation, there is one issue that i find most egregious, and that is their shameful opposition to provide our catastrophically wounded heroes with access to reproductive services that they so desperately need to start a family. mr. president, this shouldn't be a political issue.

this is about giving veterans who have sacrificed everything, every option we have to help them fulfill a simple dream of starting a family. now as we all know, our men and women in uniform have become increasingly susceptible to productive spinal and traumatic brain injuries due to the changing weapons of war. but as we know, thanks to modern medicine, many of these service members are being kept alive and are returning home. in fact, as of the new year, there are 2,348 service members who are living with reproductive urinary or pelvic injuries as a result of this war. and like so many of our veterans, these men and women come home and want to return to their lives. they want to find employment. and importantly, they want to start a family. yet, what they find when they go to r.v.a. is that the fertility

services that are available don't meet their extremely complex needs. in fact, veterans who suffer from these injuries find that the v.a. is specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproductive techniques like i.v.f.. they are told that despite the fact that they have made such an extreme sacrifice for all of us, we cannot provide them with the medical services that they need simply to start a family. now these are veterans like staff sergeant mack kyle and his wife tracy. despite returning home from iraq as a quadriplegic, staff sergeant kyle and tracy started talking about and exploring the possibility of starting a family together. but because his injuries prevented him from having children naturally, tracy turned to the v.a. and began to explore her options for fertility treatments. but because of that v.a. ban,

they were told no and turned away. so they were out of options, and the kyles decided that this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out of pocket, out of their own pocket for i.v.f. treatment in the private sector to the tune of $32,000 per round of treatment. well, mr. president, thankfully staff sergeant kyle and tracy welcomed twins matthew and faith into the world after just one round of treatment. and tracy told me after that -- and i want to quote it to all of you -- "the day we had our children something changed in both of us. this is exactly what we had always wanted. our dreams had arrived." the v.a., congress and the american people have saeupd countless times -- have said countless times that they want to do everything they can to support my husband or make him feel whole again, and this is your chance. having a family is exactly what

we needed to feel whole again. please help us make these changes so that other families can share this experience." end quote. mr. president, tracy and matt aren't alone. there are many men and women out there who share this common thread of a desperate desire to fulfill their dream of starting a family only to find that the catastrophic wounds they sustained while defending our country are now preventing them from seeing that dream through. it shouldn't be that way. now, unfortunately, republicans are indicating they will not join us today in overturning this absurd and antiquated ban. apparently they would rather our nation's heroes spend tens of thousands of dollars of their own money in the private sector to get the advanced reproductive treatments they need just to start a family. they don't see the problem in

letting our veterans' marriages dissolve because of the stress of infertility in combination of course with the stress of readjusting to life after such a severe injury driving relationships to a breaking point. mr. president, any service member who sustains this type of extremely serious injury deserves a lot more, because you know we came very close actually to making this bill a reality in the last congress. in fact, tracy kyle who i just talked about, watched from the gallery here when we unanimously passed this legislation. unanimously. but here i am today once again imploring republicans to stand up and explain to our men and women in uniform who i know are paying very close attention to this debate and explain to them why they now want to turn their back on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. just yesterday i spoke to a

crowded room of heroes from disabled american veterans and told them the heartbreaking story of the kyle family that i just shared and why this legislation is so important. and if their cheers and applause are any indication, i say they wholeheartedly agree that our women's veterans deserve this. our male veterans deserve this. and certainly our military families deserve this. so, mr. president, i'm here on the floor today to ask my colleagues a simple question: are you willing to tell those brave men and women that didn't ask questions when they were put in harm's way that you're going to let politics get in the way of our commitment to them? that catastrophic wounds that we have seen from injuries in iraq and afghanistan have meant that our veterans' dreams to start a family have been put on hold because of the tremendous cost of i.v.f. services? we believe that is a cost of war, and we believe that the v.a. absolutely should cover and

it is unacceptable to let unrelated issues stand in the way. mr. president, even the major veterans service organizations and their leaders have said to us that issues like the iran sanctions that the other side wants to offer have no flays in comprehensive veterans legislation. people like commander daniel dillinger who said iran is a serious issue congress needs to be to* address but cannot be tied to the bill which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of u.s. service men and women from war. or v.a. founder and c.e.o. paul rykoff who called this comprehensive legislation -- and i quote -- "a game changer that will change the trajectory for veterans for years to come." as serious and as timely as they may be, unrelated issues like iran sanctions are just

calculated attempts to intentionally dismantle our bipartisan effort to expand health care, education opportunities, employment and benefits for our nation's heroes. we can't allow our commitment to them to lapse or to get caught up in separate issues or political grand standing. so, mr. president, i want to thank the senator from vermont and all of his staff for their tireless work on this comprehensive legislation that they brought to the floor. and i really hope that our colleagues will reconsider opposing this commonsense and important step to give those who have sacrificed everything the reproductive treatments that they need to start a family. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i inquire how much time is left for democrats during morning business. the presiding officer: 12 minutes. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to use the remainder of the democrats'

time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: i ask unanimous consent that be. mr. san sangerra be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: i rise to speak about the slaughter in syria, a country of 23 million people, a proud country is being transformed before our eyes into a land of rubble, skeletons, refugees and ghosts. three million syrians have fled to neighboring countries. that number will likely exceed four million by year end. nearly seven million syrians are refer skwraoes within their own country -- refugees within their own country driven from their homes by the atrocities of the assad regime, more than 130,000 innocent people have lost their lives during a three-year civil war. we're witnessing one of the greatest humanitarian crises since world war ii, and it can be stopped. it can be stopped. last summer my armed services colleague, senator angus king of

maine, and i visited turkey and jordan to explore the dimension of the refugee crisis. we visited refugee camps, talked with government leaders and n.g.o. about the damaged lives and the stressed communities that result from this unprecedented displacement of syrians. last week the senator from maine and i visited lebanon to see the scale of the syrian crisis in that country. in a country of only slightly more than four million people, there are already over one million syrian refugees have fled into lebanon in the last three years. one in four. think of the scale of that refugee crisis if we were to receive in the united states war refugees at that scale it would be 75 million to 80 million people, nearly one in four. in lebanon last week we met with government leaders, n.g.o.'s and the high commissioner on

refugees. what we learned is staggering. the lebanese people have been resilient. the water and health of that nation are strained to the breaking point. the lebanese economy already fragile is teetering. schools in blob now operate -- in lebanon operate on double shifts with lebanese children in the morning and refugee children in the afternoon, accommodating tens of thousands of children with more coming every day. the decision by the lebanese terrorist militia hezbollah to go all in to support the regime of bashar al-assad has led to a wave of extremist bombings against leaders within lebanon in which many, many civilians are casualties. senator king and i witnessed a bombing in downtown beirut while we were there. many in our group heard the explosion, saw smoke rise.

we felt certain that our meetings would be canceled that day but one of the most grim aspects of our trip is that a bombing that killed five people, a suicide bombing and injured nearly 100 caused no one to change their daily routine. that is what life is in lebanon largely because of the syrian civil war. the crisis extends beyond turkey, jordan and lebanon. refugees are going into iraq by the thousands, 30,000 a day on one day in august exacerbating a deterioration of that country's stability and drawer a deeper intersectarian conflict. this photo is on the iraq border with syria and you'll see refugees stretching into the distance and the hills beyond. this is what is happening with all of the neighboring countries to syria. as you know, the united states is the largest provider of assistance to the refugees who have fled outside of syria. we have provided $1.3 billion in aid thus far, $340 million in

lebanon alone. but getting relief into syria is the next challenge. because, mr. president, the conditions in syria are even worse than the conditions i described in lebanon. nearly seven million syrians are displaced within their own country. more than nine million syrians need humanitarian aid. but they've not been able to receive basic humanitarian aid -- food and medicine -- due to the actions of the bashar al-assad regime and also due to the complicity of the regime's patron, russia. the denial of humanitarian aid is a war crime, pure and simple. thousands are dying of starvation. cases of tuberculosis, polio, typhoid and other diseases are expanding at an exponential rate. and none of this is an accident. the assad regime is using forced starvation and forced sieges as a weapon to destroy the syrian

people. last month i met here in the senate with syrians who had survived the chemical weapons attacks carried out by the assad regime in august of 2013. they described in gruesome detail what they and their families, many young children, endured in august. but the most shocking moment of the interview, mr. president, came when a 22-year-old survivor who had fled syria through lebanon said if she had to pick, she would rather die a death because of chemical weapons than be hit by a barrel bomb or starve to death, because death by chemical weapons would be quicker. in recent weeks nothing has epitomized the brutality of the regime more than the use of these barrel bombs. the bombs are crude weapons. they are simple oil drums that are filled with shrapnel and explosives. helicopters often deliver the weapons and helicopters often

hover over neighborhoods for minutes to just scare everyone who knows what's coming. the barrel bombs drop, they explode, shrapnel level neighborhoods. this is an example of a neighborhood in aleppo. at one point hundreds were killed when barrel bombs were dropped on aleppo earlier this month. you see the size and scope of the devastation, and you see families and their children fleeing the area in the aftermath of a barrel bomb. and this is going on every day in syria. secretary kerry has rightly called these barrel bomb attacks unacceptable and barbaric. the primary architect of these crimes is bashar al-assad, but he has a patron who funds and supports what he does and who has the ability to stop the atrocities. russia is assad's principal support. since the start of the syrian war, russia has shoang it is complicit in these war crimes but it is also capable of stopping them. in the united nations russia has used its veto power and threat

of veto on the security council numerous times to block action to help the syrian people. three of these vetoes were used, mr. president, to block basic humanitarian aid. what possible reason could any civilized nation have to denying war victims food and medical supplies? but russia has shown that it can be persuaded or shamed into taking action to try to promote basic safety of syrian citizens. in august, with the threat of u.s. military action to punish the assad regime for use of chemical weapons against its own civilians, russia realized that it could no longer be the sole global apologist for this atrocity. and so it persuaded syria to admit to the crime, acknowledge the existence of a stockpile and commit to the complete destruction of these inhumane weapons. while that process has been slow, the weaponry has not been

used since russia realized that the world would not tolerate such a clear violation of international law. similarly, after repeatedly blocking u.n. action to deliver humanitarian aid in syria, russia decided in the midst of the sochi olympics that it could no longer stand in the way of basic humanitarian aid. the eyes of the world were on it, and it knew it could no longer be seen as the sole obstacle blocking people from receiving food and medicine. so it finally agreed to u.n. security council resolution calling for the provision of humanitarian aid inside syria. when the eyes of the world were on it in the middle of the olympics last week, it finally joined in with the rest of the world in calling on syria to allow aid to its people. in the aftermath of that resolution, the real test lies

ahead because those were worded on paper and now we must see whether the aid will be delivered. because this is the situation in syria today. this is a recent photo from a suburb of damascus that has been under siege by the assad regime without access to food and basic medical care. witness this photo. look at the destruction. look at the rubble. look at the throng of hungry people stretching to owe belief onno the distance. see the hunger in their faces and bodies, and look at the questions in their eyes. it is incumbent upon the syrian regime to allow unhindered access of humanitarian aid to all syrians. opposition groups have that same obligation. mr. president, in conclusion, let me say a final word about russian responsibility to respond to these poor syrian people. when the russian government and their people see this picture, it should remind them of their

own history. during the siege of le leningrad during world war ii, the nazis used these same tactics, forced starvation and siege, as a tactic of war to cause horrible deprivation to the russian population of that stivment russians should look in the eyes of these victims of intentional starvation and grapple with their responsibility to them. russia can cause the assad regime, just as it did in august, to open access so that these people can have food and medicine. russia can finally agree -- russia has finally agreed to words on paper at the u.n., but the world will watch the actions of this nation. mr. president, one final thought: when senator king and i were traveling last week in the middle east, we went to other countries as well. one country that we're engaged in a back-and-forth with over the provision of u.s. military

assistance, what we are raising are legitimate questions about some democracy reforms that this nation needs to undertake if we're to be better and better partners. a leader of that nation said to me, if the united states won't provide assistance, then we'll find a way to make russia our partner. well, to anyone thinking that making russia your partner is a good thing, you a tout look at this photo, too, because this is what has come of syria choosing russia as its principal partner. is this the kind of partner you want? we must keep the spotlight on these atrocities. we must keep the spotlight on assad's responsibility. we must keep the spotlight on russia's complicity to bring an end to these atrocities and to work with other nations to find a resolution to the syrian civil war. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, first of all, i want to say that i'm glad senator kaine has been here talking about this important issue today. the tragedy of syria, the tragedy of the barrel bombs, as a hideous way to kill people where you fly over with helicopters and first terrorize people, wondering where you're going to drop these weapons and then basically shove them out of the side dosh of a helicopter -- door of a helicopter. the russian complicity in this and what we're seeing even today in russia beginning to flex their muscles as it relates to the people of ukraine. i had the prime minister from georgia in to see me on monday and, of course, the day the olympics were over, the russians were there the next day, were

aggressively partitioning off that part of georgia that they have seized in the last couple of years. the same argument that they could easily try to make in ukraine. ukraine, the soviet satellite states, the one that has the most potential future positive impact on russia, if they could get it back. and the countries of the west -- the countries of the european union, the united states should be aggressively uniting in trying to reinforce the desire for people in ukraine to want to have economic freedom and want to have personal freedom and sending the strongest possible messages against those who work against that, whether they're in russia or whether they were complicit in the activities of ukraine. this sudden moving around of russian troops today, unannounced until just the last few hours that they'd be

maneuvering, it's usually no consequence -- it's usually no coincidence if the russians are moving troops around at a time of crisis on their borders, and we should be very vigilant in sending the message of freedom, the message of supporting people who want freedom. my concern about syria is that our policy hasn't worked there either. and, frankly, our policy hasn't worked in such a way that it makes it hard for us now to say there will be consequences for russia if something happens in ukraine. we need to be sure that the united states of america, when it talks about consequences, the world knows that there will be consequences, they'll be meaningful, they'll be certain be, that things like syria can't be allowed to continue and worse things in ukraine can't be allowed to havment but, -- allowed to happen. but, mr. president, i came today

to talk about health care again. i saw the leader's comments, heard his comments over the weekend, senator reid's comments were referring to the president's health care plan. he said, there are plenty of horror stories being told. and then senator reid said, they are -- all of them are untrue. all of them are untrue. now, i don't think anybody has come to the floor more frequently than i have in the last two amongsts, three months, -- two months, three months, ten weeks -- i believe i have come to the floor every week with the ten weeks we were in session with stories about missourians. we say senator reid is is going, senator blunt is going to come to the floor and talk about what you're going through. in virtually every case, they said, we told you these stories because we want other people to know. we want people to know how we're being affected by the

president's health care bill. and they seem to have plenty of facts backing them up way beyond senator reid's assertion that all of them are untrue. they are not all untrue. in fact, i have ever reason to believe they're all true and there are many more stories out there to be told. in fact, today i wanted to talk about the changes in medicare advantage and had to have some discussion with our team. well, how many of these stories are you not going to tell this week if you just tell the stories about medicare advantage? if you're in senator reid's view of the wocialgd world, i guessk the active imagination of missourians is just running wild because they're contacting our office constantly talking about higher premiums, higher deductibles, insurance they used to have that worked and insurance that doesn't work, and it doesn't work because the federal government, without

thinking through the goal of trying to be sure that more people had access to insurance, didn't think about all of the unintended things that could happen. the last -- or the latest -- i am afraid it woint won't be the. i wish it was the last broken promise. the latest broken promise related to the 15 million people in america that have medicare advantage, something they liked and something that they're not going to be able to have in many cases the way they use you had to have it. this is another application, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. well, all the 15 million americans that have medicare advantage, many of them are going to find they can't keep it. and before this is over, all of them may find out they can't keep it. you know, the health care plan -- the president's health care plan already cut hundreds of billions of dollars from

medicare, not to save medicare but to fund the new program. now, everybody knows that medicare is one of the great challenges we have going forward. how are we going to maintain medicare? and only in washington would you be able to get by b saying medicare is in real trouble. and let's cut it to start another program. this is the only place in america where you wouldn't be laughed off the legislative dais or legislative floor. we've got this one program in trouble. we're not going to do anything to reform it. we're just going to cut it so we can start another program. we've already cut medicare by $300 billion. on top that have -- that's medicare advantage. on top of this cut to medicare advantage, we now see that plans are being changed and being changed in significant ways. why do we have medicare

advantage? for states like mine, the state of missouri with lots of rural areas, lots of rural hospitals, not always competitive health care providers, medicare advantage provided the competition, and it was in the competition in medicare advantage and medicare part-d that made them work and made them work at much less cost than anybody can anticipated. the marketplace works if you focus on a competitive marketplace rather than trying to run health care to be sure that there's competition out there. that's what medicare advantage did. in our state, one out of four people on medicare are on medicare advantage, 237,000 missourians on medicare advantage. on february 14, i joined my colleagues in urging c.m.s. not to make anymore cuts in medicare advantage. there were 40 of us this sig thd

that letter. 19 of the 40 senators that signed that letter were democrats, 21 were republicans p. a pretty bipartisan sense that something must be happening out there to hurt these programs that's true, not untrue. and why would we continue to do that, i don't know. so i join the republican leaders in a letter just this week calling on secretary sebelius to stop moving forward with these misguided policies that do things that impact people on medicare advantage, that do things that impact people who had health insurance with a deductible they could afford but no longer had that. the administration's proposals contend once again to -- continue to contradict that idea that if you had health care that you liked, you could keep your health care policy. if you had doctors that you liked, you could keep your

doctors. and more and more people are seeing that that's not true. in stories that i firmly believe to be true -- not untrue, no matter what the majority leader of the senate might have said -- let me share a few of those with you today as i move toward the conclusion what i have want to talk about. darcy is a registered nurse. she works in facilities and with medicare patients daily. she says that the effects of rising expense of medicare advantage is having a real impact on the people she deals with. a quote from her letter was our seniors and other medicare advantage advantage members should not, as they already do, have to make choices between paying for medicines and other health care-related expenses or paying for food or housing. she says, "i hope you're able to see the bigger picture as i do, as a 30-year-old professional nurse who is on the front lines

each and every day taking care of these individuals and their families." sounded truthful to me. edward from saint peter's, missouri, say he and his wife live on a fixed income. he says "my wife and i are retired seniors living on a fixed income. i have medicare advantage provided by mercy, a st. louis-based health care company. i'm told i'll lose coverage next year due to obamacare cuts. why must the cost of obamacare" -- this is continuing his letter. "why must the cost of obamacare, which missourians did not want, be paid for by cuts to seniors? please change the obamacare law to leave medicare advantage alone." again, 19 democrats, 21 republicans, signed a letter just last week asking that same question. don't go any further. this letter didn't even say

reverse what you've done. it just says stop making these cuts that are being made right now. ronald from ray town, missouri, says his co-pay increased as a result of the administration's cuts to medicare advantage plans. here's what he says. "please protect our medicare advantage plans. as you know medicare is presently underfunded. i do not appreciate those that permit obama to willfully take hundreds of billions of dollars that we seniors have paid into medicare and use those moneys to fund obamacare. i'm counting on you to protect our medicare advantage plans and realize that the less government involvement in our medicare advantage plans, the more efficient the plan. as a result of obamacare, my co-pay has increased." my guess is ronald knows whether his co-pay has increased or not. and in talk to him, i'm certainly persuaded that like the other people were talking about today, the facts he's

presenting are true. jennifer from blue springs, missouri, here's what she says in her letter. "my husband and i are both on medicare already. the co-pays for our medicare advantage plans have doubled and in many cases tripled from 2013 to 2014. and that is why i'm responding with a nightmare story." the other thing jennifer said she did, she and her husband are retired. they're musicians, and they had a business where they would go to nursing homes and play gospel music just for their expenses. she points out that because of the increased health care cost, nursing homes no longer have room in their budget for something that's entertaining like live gospel music. the reverberations of what happens when the government decides that the government is better prepared to manage not just medicare and medicaid, as

if we didn't have enough challenges already, but 16% or 17% of the economy are seen out there every day, and i certainly believe there have to be some people that are benefiting from this, but the numbers don't suggest that the overall benefit is nearly as good as the overall damage. people losing insurance at greater numbers than people getting insurance. people's premiums going up more than people's premiums going down, deductibles rising. it would be nice for those who supported this to convince people that all these stories are untrue. but i think too many people have true stories to tell for their neighbors and their friends not to realize what's happening because of this government interference with the health care system that was working instead of doing the hand full of things we could have done to

make the best health care system in the world work better. they were there. they were offered. the president knew they were there. that's not the course we polled. and the course we're following is not leading to a place that most americans want to be. and i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, could i inquire what the order is here in morning business relative to time? the presiding officer: there are 15 minutes remaining on the republican side. mr. coats: thank you. i don't think i'll use that much time but appreciate this opportunity to come to the floor to speak about a different subject but one that is imminent and necessary for us to consider, and that is the current iranian sanctions issue.

back in 2007 when iran had only about 700 centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium, we -- and i mean by "we" i mean nearly the entire community of nations -- determined that this iranian behavior by this iranian regime was simply too dangerous to tolerate. the u.n. security council began the process of passing a series of resolutions demanding that iran stop these activities completely. the united states led by many here in the united states senate began the very careful and painstaking process of amassing an international coalition backing increasingly tough sanctions aimed, all of these aimed explicitly at forcing the iranian regime to end enrichment activities. and the reason for this was a

nuclear weapons capable and armed or armed iran posed an imminent threat not just to the middle east but to the world community. that was the consensus agreed to by the world community and supported by resolution after resolution on the security council of the united nations and by proclamations from not only our country but countries around the world. that entire effort for some years has been devoted -- our entire effort has been devoted to this goal. ending uranium enrichment activities with the con ses u.s.s. -- consensus that nuclear weapon capability posed unintended consequences. neither that goal is nowhere in sight. neither the interim agreement that currently is being employed

nor the administration, nor any of the negotiating partners even refer to these resolutions or this multiyear strategy of achieving the objective that we set out to achieve. that objective was iran would cease enrichment of uranium that could be used as enriched uranium to achieve nuclear weapons capability. that goal has suddenly been totally abandoned the current interim agreement explicitly concedes to the iranians their right to continue enrichment activity with only meager limitations, all of which can be reversed by iran, the mullahs there, in an instant. the mullahs in iran boast

publicly of this great negotiating victory for them, which goes against everything we've been trying to do for the past six or seven years. it seems unassailable that iran came to the negotiating table at long last directly as a result of the consequence of the hardship that was achieved in turn by employing these international economic sanctions imposed by this regime. they resisted coming to the negotiating table until these things really started to hit home. but what's equally clear is that the regime wants sanctions relief and has sought this deal, this interim deal to accomplish it, which unfortunately, we have given them that relief. and what did we get in return? what we get in return is

negotiating, having gettinged away our very -- having negotiated away our very core purpose for doing this in the first place. instead of using our leverage at this point for greater vulnerability on the iranian side, making the progress, continuing to make the progress we had to bring iran to its, to the position of ceasing to enrich that uranium, we have blunted our very best leverage and our very best tool. instead of pressing our long term advantage, we've begun to relieve the pressure on iran to cease their efforts to gain nuclear weapon capability. and why have we done this? why have we abandoned our goal to stop uranium enrichment? because the uranium negotiating team told us they would never tolerate the long path to an enrichment industry. so here's my conclusion about all of this, my central

conviction on this matter. if those on the other side of the table tell us in advance that our long-held conviction and purpose is asking too much instead of meekly complying with their request, then we must increase that pressure until they change their mind, not abandon our own goal as being too tough. so what have we bought with this interim agreement? according to the bipartisan policy center, which i used to be a part of, a player with, the main practical consequence of this claimed freezing is that the time iran now needs to produce a critical mass of highly enriched uranium, which is 20 kilograms, with current centrifuges has gone from an estimated 59 days to 63 days. what did we gain from the agreement? four days. four days longer that it will take iran once they flip the switch to enrich that, get that

highly enriched uranium which allows them nuclear weapons capability. it seems clear to me that among iran's principal objectives now is to break apart the strong international consensus we've worked so hard over so many years to forge, and prospects for them to do so, the iranians, look pretty darned good. now that we've given away the store, we already hear talk of further interim agreements. all the talk about this interim agreement is going to be enforced, and by golly, if they don't live up to what we've asked them to do, no more extension, no more interim agreements. well, it doesn't look like that is what's going to happen because clearly iranians have not lived up to what they agreed to do or what we've asked them to do. but there seems to be no prospect in place for our returning back to sanctions unless, unless the united states senate on a bipartisan basis --

and there is bipartisan support for this -- is able to impose that next round of sanctions should this interim agreement not achieve its purposes. and yet, we are being blocked currently with bringing this legislation to the floor. i again want to repeat, this is bipartisan legislation led by the chairman of the foreign relations committee, led by those who have been actively engaged and involved in this. i may have made a mistake there with the chairman. senator menendez of new jersey is leading this particular effort, and it is a bipartisan effort. but now we're being asked to stand down. we're not even given a chance to exercise our vote on this, which we're attempting to add to the pending legislation here. and again delay, delay, delay is putting us in a position of

essentially conceding to the iranians for what they want to have and to give them the opportunity to continue to pursue their quest for nuclear weapon capability. obviously for them, that's just fine. if they can turn the protracted uncertainty and gradual sanctions relief into a series of lesser agreements. but for us, more interim agreements will mean that our allies will become accustomed to these gradual changes and the increasing commerce of iranian oil. they will become less inclined to again reverse course, almost regardless of iranian actions. and following that prolonged process, then when we confront a far healthier iran but with a weaker coalition opposed to iranian nuclear ambitions. iranian ambitions and capabilities will grow. our efforts will halt the iranian quest for nuclear

capability; those will diminish and we will then be left with a choice of containing or taking military action against a nuclear-capable, if not nuclear-armed iran. the president has said repeatedly that containment is not an option and it's not for me either. and since he has said also that military force is an option, it seems clear to me that this current course is more likely to bring us to that start point than to anything like a negotiated settlement. we must be determined to do what we can here in the senate to prevent us from reaching that point. not only must we refocus our government and other friendly governments on the need to eliminate iran's nuclear infrastructure in any final agreement, no matter how difficult that might be, we must also oppose iran's likely intentions to prolong the negotiations process intended to

continue to weaken our coalition. the nuclear weapons-free iran act that i have cosponsored will give us great leverage in doing that. it will make it clear that the united states senate will not support playing iran's game any longer than we already have. mr. president, i deeply regret we are not being given the opportunity to debate this issue before the american people and among ourselves, that we are not being able to have a vote in the united states senate as to whether our current policy that this administration is pursuing is the right policy to achieve the goal which we all agree to. four presidents, two democrat, two republican -- the four last presidents have declaratively said a nuclear-capable iran is unacceptable. this president, this current president, president obama has

stated that over and over. and yet here we are engaged in a process that advances that prospect. it puts us at a disadvantage, and we're giving away the one tool that has brought iran to the negotiating table, and they trumpet publicly how they have outsmarted us and outnegotiated us and diminished our opportunity to achieve what the world community wants to achie achieve. we will rue the day when we have had iran almost to the point where we could achieve our goal and we stepped back and conceded to their promise, their commitment to continue to enrich -- to continue to add centrifuges, to continuing their pursuit of nuclear weapons capability and nuclear weapon ability and being armed with

that. that wilthat will pose unimagine consequences to us. yet here we stand at the moment of decision, right when we, in a sense, had them where we wanted to get them, and we concede that. i deeply regret that we have not been able to move afford wit foh these additional sanctions. if in this first interim agreement iran does not live up to the objectives and goals that we have demanded. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1982, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 301, s. 1982, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. merkley: thank you very much, mr. president. i'm -- i am thrilled that we are here at this moment debating benefits for our veterans.

our veterans have stood up for america, fighting for us overseas. when they come home, weentsdz to be -- we need to be standing up for them. over time, we've come to recognize that there are a number of shortfalls in the way we address our benefits for veterans that need to be improved, and that's what this bill is all about. and so yesterday we had a motion to close debate on whether to debate this bill, and that was successful. so here we are at this moment. and let's recognize that america mass been at war for more -- has been outalitybeen at war for mo2 years. more than 50,000 americans have been wounded in combat. 2.5 million americans have at some point left their homes and families to serve our country in iraq and in afghanistan.

and many of these men and women have served more than one deployment. 400,000 have served more than three deployments. they have gone back to the theater of war repeatedly, sacrifices at a personal level, sacrifices for their family, sacrificings fosacrifices for t. today we need to make sure that the benefits promised are there and where the benefits are insufficient, that they are improved. so i am hearing that there is a possibility that there may be an effort today to block this bill, this bill on behalf of our veterans. and i certainly hope that that will not be the case. how can we explain that the ongoing partisan politics that have so poisoned and paralyzed our nation are more important

than addressing the benefits of our veterans, our servicemen and women who have fought for our country? today is not a day for partisan politics. it is a day for keeping faith with those who have served our nation. i want to address a particular provision that is in this bill today. the bill takes on many issues, one of which is to work very hard to shorten and eliminate the big lag in time that occurs when our veterans apply for benefitbenefits. benefits delayed are, for a period of time, benefits denied. and the department of veterans services, they have made progress. but more progress -- this bill will make a difference in eliminating that backlog and addressing the needs of our

veterans in a timely fashion. and timeliness is very important. but there is another provision in this bill that i in particular want to emphasize because it comes out of conversations that occurred six years ago when i was talking to folks about running for the u.s. senate, and people in oregon said, we really need to take care of our gold star families, our families that are striving and struggling to be on their feet after we have lost a service member in combat. and this is a challenge, of course, for the children, and it is a challenge for the spouses. and so a veteran brought up to me the fact that we needed to provide much better educational benefits, and i am very pleased to have a bipartisan sponsor, senator heller of nevada,

because there is nothing about helping our veterans that should be a partisan issue. there is nothing about addressing the needs of our gold star game families who have losa member of the f.t.a. famil famit that should be a partisan issue. a veteran talked to me in 2008 right before came to this chamber about this issue of education benefits for the children and for the spouses. because when often the primary wage earner for a family is struck down in battle, the rest of the family needs a lot of help regaining their feet. and that means educational opportunities for the children, but let's not forget that the spouse who has to take over major financial responsibilities also needs educational benefits.

well, shortly before i came here, the post-9/11 g.i. bill went into effect, creating the machine gunnery sergeant frye scholarship. that scholarship fulfilled the vision that robert thornhill and i talked to, and it evening went further to include a book stipend. but it d.h.s. so for the children of the fallen -- but it only did so for the children of the fallen. and mr. thornhill followed up with me. noted that we need to take on and extend these benefits to spouses as well while in the long term the children need help going to college. in the short term spouses often have to be retrained to adopt that their new role as the major breadwinner for the family. so for several years i've been advocating that we fulfill this vision of taking care of the educational opportunity issues for our gold star families. education is a powerful tool to

rebuild a family's financial foundation, but it has to be affordable. so in this bill today is a provision that mr. thornhill championed, a provision that is fundamental to fairness for our spouses of those who have fallen, and a provision that is fundamental to the future success of our gold star families. so this provision, the spouses of heroes education act, is one element among a number that our veterans' committee has so ably assembled to address shortfalls in the programs that assist those that have stood for our country. so let us not forget today what we're here working to do, to keep faith with those who have served our country. let us set aside the petty,

partisan, poisonous games, and let's keep in mind holding faith with our veterans. let's get this bill done. let's get it to conference with the house. let's get it to the oval office. let us keep faith with those who have stood for our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i'm delighted that the senate is talking about our veterans. i'm disappointed that the bill that's before us did not go through the entire committee process. i'm grateful that senator burr, the ranking member, has brought forward a side-by-side bill which i would like to discuss for a moment on the floor of the senate, and i am particularly glad that that bill also brings up the iran sanctions issue. i know the administration has kind of backed away from the sanctions because of some things that happened recently and does not want a sanctions bill to

pass the senate, but i followed closely what's happened in the middle east. i go back to 1979 when georgians were held hostage in the american embassy initarian for -- in tehran for 444 days. i have a lot of experience with that part of the world, and i think there are some things we should be reminded of. this bill, the burr bill, that includes the veterans' benefits, also includes nuclear weapons sanctions on iran and most of the provisions of the nuclear weapons-free iran act. in particular, three things are important to note. one, it reimposes existing sanctions suspended under the interim agreement if iran cheats on its commitment, drags its feet in negotiations or threatens the west with long-range missiles or terrorism. number two, it ensures that the final agreement must require iran dismantle its infrastructure to prevent iran from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. and third, it threatens to impose additional economic sanctions in the future should iran cheat on its commitment or fail to agree to the final deal that dismantles its nuclear

infrastructure. i have watched the television set. i have seen the report -- international reports. i have listened to what the iranians are saying since we have had this interim agreement, and here is what it says. iranian president had a san rouhani pledges that under no circumstances, and that's a direct quote, would iran agree to dismantle a single centrifuge in a final nuclear agreement. this is what essaying now and we're talking about getting to a final agreement months from now. second, during iran's national day celebrationses during which american flags were burned, rouhani declared we will continue to progress our nuclear technology. third, former top nuclear negotiator told iran media in a recent interview that the islamic public will never, i underscore never, agree to dismantle portions of its nuclear infrastructure. iran nuclear negotiator reiterated iran would not accept the cloture of, and i quote, any of its nuclear sites. next, an iran official on

february 12 set aside the idea of potentially altering a nuclear reactor so that other nations would fear the production of atomic bomb fuel. and finally, iran will determine its needs regarding iranian enrichment on its own, the country's chief nuclear scientist said on february 25, and will not, and i underscore not, accept foreign powers dictating its enrichment policy. iran is advancing its nuclear ballistics testing system and has fired nuclear missiles to test its capability. iran has deployed two ships in the atlantic just as a show of force on the united states of america. and they continue in every way possible to be a surrogate fighter in syria, empowering the hezbollah and lebanon andhams and -- and hamas and gaza and continuing to cause dismantling disturbances throughout the middle east. why should we not as a congress of the united states in talking about our veterans include within that talk a clear shot across the bow for iranians not

laughing at us or poking their finishinger in our face when we talk about a nuclear-free iran. we do not need a nuclear-armd iran in the middle east for a plethora of reasons. it will be a very unstable nuclear arms race in an unstable part of the world. it's the biggest enemy the united states has. our best ally, israel, lies in the path of iranian resistance. it's important that the sanctions be reinstated and that we have conditions on the iranians so if they violate their promises or they look the other way on their commitments or they do what they are saying on their own national television networks today, they understand there will be a consequence to their actions. i remember 1979. i remember when "nightline" game a television show, because for 444 days, americans were held hostage in tehran. i remember that just the day before president reagan was sworn in as president of the united states, president carter finally negotiated a release of the hostages in iran. for one simple reason -- iran knew that once president carter was out of office and president reagan came into office, he

would follow through on what he has said and that is he would do whatever it took to free the hostages. there is only one thing the iranians understand. they understand someone who will stand up to them, someone who will take them on and somebody who will not settle for their looking the other way on the agreements they make. it is critical and important that the senate of the united states send a clear message to the iranians that we will not be lied to, we will not be misled and we will expect them to leave up to the -- live up to the commitments they had promised they would lead up to. if they don't, there will be consequences for their actions. the world bank and the international monetary fund are already pointing out that the economy of iran is now improving with the interim agreement that we currently have. we have no certainty in a final agreement that's coming in the next few months. we have no certainty that the iranians are going to do what they say they're going to do anyway. if we sit here passively saying it will be all right, if we don't let them know there will be conditions if they violate the sanctions, if we don't let them know we mean business, then america will have turned its

back on the most dangerous enemy that we have and that is the enemy of terrorism and a radical islamic republic of iran. mr. president, i appreciate our veterans and the sacrifice they have made to try and free us from terrorism. i appreciate the volunteers who have sacrificed their sacred treasure and their families and their own personal blood and their own personal life to try and defend america and liberate the people of iraq and the people of afghanistan. i don't want us to turn and leave the middle east. i want us to instead let the middle east know and its biggest ogre, the nation of iran, that we will not stand for a nuclear weapon in iran. if they continue to try to progress toward that, there will be sanctioning, then be crippling. america will not turn our back on iran. we will stand toe to toe with them and say this will not stand. i commend senator burr for his leadership in including that in this portion of the veterans' bill, those members of the foreign relations committee and the other 57 members of the senate who have signed the iran sanctions bill. it is my hope and plea that sometime in the weeks ahead before the iranians think we have no teeth left at all, that we will do the right thing on

the floor of the united states senate and enhance the sanctions against the -- the conditions of sanctions against the nation of iran if they lie to us or fail to prepare the promises they have made in the interim agreement and the ultimate permanent agreement that we make. and, mr. president, i yield back my time and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i

would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we have got a lot of challenges before this nation and this congress. i believe the most critical challenge is how we handle the financial matters that have been entrusted to us, how we handle the budget, the spending, the debt that we are accruing in america and are we able, do we have the will, do we have the integrity to stand up and put this nation on a sound fiscal path? i would note to all my colleagues just the week before last before the bhj committee, our own congressional budget office director, mr. doug elmendorf repeated once again which is absolutely accepted by virtually every economist in america, this country remains on an unsustainable debt course. this is an unsustainable path we're on.

he indicated and said flatly we could indeed face a fiscal crisis, something like 2007 perhaps, something like greece, because our debt is so large and growing at such a pace we've never been here before, we're in the red zone on the tachometer, we're in danger area and we need to get out of it. so i would say to my colleagues, isn't this true, does anybody doubt it, does anybody deny it? then why don't we respond in an appropriate way? i was shocked, deeply disappointed, amazed and saddened that this headline appeared earlier in the week in "the washington post," and this is what it said -- with 2015 budget request, obama will call for an end to the era of

austerity. what does this mean? every member of this congress knows what it means. it means that the president of the united states is no longer interested in fiscal responsibility. he is saying we no longer need to tighten our belt. he's saying he's going to attack anybody that suggests more spending is bad. he's going to say that he's going into this election with the idea that he's going to promise, promise, promise more and more spending, more debt, and he's not concerned about it. that's what it means. i'm not exaggerating. i think every member of this body knows exactly what that signal was. so we'll see the budget, it will be out next tuesday, and we'll have a hearing in the budget committee of which i'm the ranking republican on wednesday, but i suspect and i'm confident it will do just like his last two budgets.

it would increase spending $1 trillion above the amount of spending we agreed to in 2011 and just reaffirmed essentially with the ryan-murray bill he signed about four weeks ago into law. we cannot do this. this is how we go -- we destroy a country, 0-how we weaken an economy. and i don't have words to express it. i'll just say one more point. economists are telling us that our economic growth today is falling -- is below what it otherwise would be because of the size of the debt this country faces. right now, not in the future, right now. it's a wet blanket on economic growth. the rogoff reinhart study talks

about slower growth and we've consistently seen projections for growth not be met. director elmendorf in his testimony, i asked him about it. two years ago he predicted 2013 would allow us to see 4.6% economic growth. it came in as 1.9%, a stunning miss, well below, below 2% growth means you're not creating jobs, you're not creating wealth wealth, you're basically stagnant with an increasing population. we need to be at 4.6%. we need some of that kind of growth. one reason we're not is bigger government, more taxes, more regulation, and more debt. and we're not going to get out of it until we get off that path. so now we have a veterans bill before us. nobody, i don't believe, is

more committed to veterans in this body than i've been and so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to do the right thing for veterans. but it's an audacious thing that we're seeing here today. let's review some of the history. just two months ago, every senate democrat, every senate democrat voted for a bill to cut military pensions for our soldiers. our military retirees and even our disabled veterans. it was in their bill. senate democrats then blocked not once but twice my efforts, other republican efforts to restore those cuts by closing a tax credit loophole for illegal immigrants. i see my colleague and friend, senator sanders, here. i'm going to get to the point, i'll just do it now because i

know he's got a busy agenda and i think i know how the script will all play out and if i just had my glasses i might could read this better. here they are. senator sanders and colleagues, the pending measure before us today s. 1982, the comprehensive veterans health and benefits and military retirement pay restoration act of 2013 -- 2015, which is a good title for a bill -- would cause the aggregate budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2014 deemed pursuant to section 111 of public law 113- 667 to be exceeded. therefore i raise a point of order under section 311-a-2 of

the congressional budget act of 1974. and, mr. president, i would -- mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i thank my friend from alabama for accommodating my schedule and i'll have more to say on this issue later this afternoon. let me at this point simply say, mr. president, that pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending bill and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered.

mr. sessions: mr. president, reclaiming the floor, now you have it in stark clarity. this bill proposes to spend more than we agreed to spend passing the ryan-murray act a few weeks ago. president obama signed it four weeks ago. the ink is hardly dry on it. and here we have another bill to raise that, raise the spending again, and it won't be the only one. we're going to see bill after bill after bill, and it's part of the president's strategy. what is it, the era of austerity is over. he signs ryan-murray, signed the budget control act but he had no intention of complying with it, he will not support enforcement of it and that is a failure of leadership of a

monumental proportion. it is a stunning event. swrng judge why we have a congress, pass laws that say we're only going to spend so much money and then waltz in a few weeks later and spend billions more than we agreed to. and we'll just waive the budget we just passed. this is important. but everybody knew when we passed the limits on spending that there were going to be important bills. i'm actually shocked, even by senate and congressional standards how blase this body has been about these laws. i thought at least people would pretend to honor them. there is no pretense here. and it's a failure of responsibility in this body if such spending were to pass. but let me just say -- so my

colleagues voted to cut the retirement pay of veterans, which i opposed and republicans opposed, that was already in law. a commitment we'd made to military people that if they served 20 years, they get this retirement benefit. and they waltzed in to save $6 billion supposedly and they were going to reduce their pension benefits. i didn't feel like number one, it was necessary, there were other ways to save money, and i felt like we had ways to save the money in a different way. and i offered legislation to that effect. so the attempts to fix it were blocked twice. so now we have -- and what was

in the ryan-murray bill was fiscally responsible, bad policy, but responsible fiscally. this bill is not. this bill increases -- creates new veterans programs, new spending more veterans, and it's not paid for in any way. it's all borrowed money. we're already in debt so when you enter and commit ourselves to additional obligations above what we've agreed to, every penny of that is borrowed. every penny of that will add to the debt of our country. so this bill busts the caps that we agreed to and these are caps that we all voted for, or at least our colleagues did, the democrat colleagues, because i

didn't feel for the ryan-murray bill. i thought it eroded the budget control act more than i wanted it to. but -- and it raised the caps, but it kept them in place. it eased pressure in several areas that the shoe was pinching badly, and it seized that pressure --, eased that pressure, but that's not enough now? we've got to have more? so it's using the veterans as a political tool, in my view. i don't think our veterans want their programs to be enhanced if every penny of the money that's going to enhance those programs is added to the debt of the united states of america. so this is eight times, at least, since the budget control act was passed that we've seen efforts to bust it. so our military men and women have worked tirelessly, selflessly for the good of this

country, they've always put duty first. shouldn't we put duty first? this massive federal budget of ours is filled with waste, filled with projects that cannot be defended intellectually. it was our duty to get rid of wasteful pet projects and do the right thing for our veterans. for example, colleagues, you could have closed the tax credit loophole for illegal immigrants that is costing america billions of dollars. the cut to the veterans' pension was about $6 billion over ten years. annually, according to the president's own inspector general at his own department of treasury, we're losing $4 billion a year in improper tax credit payments to illegal

aliens. why don't we fix that? the inspector general asked that we fix that. it would save $40 billion over ten years. no, sir. what did they tell us? we're not doing anything on immigration. well, the first thing you should do to create a lawful system of immigration in america is to quit rewarding people financially who come illegally. that's the first thing for heaven's sakes. what's wrong with that? is that immoral? we had an instance in which there was a trailer i believe in indiana, a number of people lived there, no children, they claimed 19 children, and got refunds from the united states of america of $30,000. all of which were not proper. none of which were proper. that's what the inspector

general was talking about. you're not entitled to come to america illegally, have a children in some other country and then demand that we give you a tax credit which is the equivalent of a direct check from the the united states treasury, a tax credit is not a deduction. it's a check from the united states treasury. but oh, no, we won't even discuss that. that's a nonstarter. so it looks like politics trump helping veterans. so if we had had a plan to fix the veterans' retirement, that could have all worked together on a good basis, but so here we have now another veteran bill that's not going to work. are there no programs, are there no spending plans out there that

couldn't be trimmed, eliminated or reconfigured that could help us honor what we -- the commitments we make to our veterans? there surely are, lots of them. you have seen a lot of them offered. so i challenge any of our colleagues, senate democrats to come to the floor and name one program they're willing to terminate in order to help fund our veterans adequately. come down here and let's hear it. there is a circling of the wagons in this administration. what did the president mean when he said the era of austerity is over, as "the washington times" reported it? what did he mean? he meant we're not cutting anything else, and he meant that he's going to propose, as he has in the past, new spending programs, not fewer spending. we can't even get amendments up

on this legislation. the majority leader has filled the tree. he won't allow us even to vote on alternative proposals. we can't have an honest debate in this chamber over how to legitimately and responsibly meet the needs of veterans or any other group, it appears, so really in effect the majority leader and his caucus won't allow a vote on soldiers. he won't just our veterans to have a vote, really. as long as that's the case, you have got no right to proceed with this legislation, in my opinion. so to those who come to the floor and attack republicans who don't care about veterans, i will issue this challenge -- tell your leader -- and because he can't function without your support, tell your leader to let us offer some amendments, let us offer some offsets that would help pay for this. tell your leader to let this chamber work its will in the

constitutional and historic way, because if you don't, it's clear that your goal is to create a misleading headline and not do what's right for veterans. and one more thing. because congress has refused to live within its means, interest on our debt is surging. unbelievably so. it will crowd out this kind of spending, defense spending, education spending, highway spending throughout our whole government. let me draw your attention to this chart, colleagues. this is what director elmendorf told us two weeks ago, last week in his testimony before the budget committee on the budget of the united states of america. he told us that the interest we

paid this day, this past year was $230 billion, not -- the savings from reducing veterans' retirement over ten years was $6 billion. the federal highway bill for one year is approximately $40 billion. the amount of money we spend on education is around $100 billion, all these programs that we spend it on. the amount of money we spend on the defense department is about 500. so this year, last year, we spent about $230 billion on interest. we don't -- when we borrow money, we go into debt, we borrow the money. people loan us the money. we give them treasury bills, with interest. look at this chart. it's so stunning. so this year is 2013, it's $230 billion.

look at the increase director elmendorf told us we can expect over the next ten years, and in 2024, ten years from now, colleagues, interest on the debt will be $870 billion in one year. how many good projects are going to have their programs cut to just pay the interest on the debt. it's the fastest growing item in the united states budget, and what do we have? we want to do something for veterans. a few weeks after we agree to limit spending, come right in with a bill to waive the spending, spend above that, borrow every penny of that money and increase this interest in debt situation. because he didn't count that. he assumed his cal -- his calculations assumed we honor the budget control act and the ryan-murray spending limits.

he assumes we're honoring what's in law. but what do we have? a motion to waive, spend above that limit. this whole reckless spending is what admiral mullen meant when he said the greatest threat to american security is our deficits, our debt. it's going to crowd out other spending. it threatens our economic viability, our growth potential, and it actually places us at risk for some financial crisis in the years to come. so i -- our voters deserve better. and look at how they tend to maneuver this legislation. it's just so absurd sometimes. we should laugh about it if it weren't so serious, and it is

serious. the sanders bill, the veterans' bill that we are being told we must vote for or they will accuse us of being unkind and unsupportive and unsympathetic to our veterans. that day's over. we're not going to be intimidated on this. we're going to do the right thing for veterans and america. this bill would exceed the spending limits for the current fiscal year that congress and other -- and the president agreed to just three months ago. initially -- and it gets worse in the outer years, it would clearly add another $260 million in mandatory spending and authorize another $182 million this year, fiscal year 2014 we're already in, $182 million. and it gets worse. so we agreed in 2011, august of 2011 to set certain spending

limits, the president signed that, both houses of congress voted for it, and come january, the president of the united states had signed that bill, laid forth his budget which would increase spending a trillion dollars over the limits that we agreed to in that august. so less than six months later, he was coming back before congress, completely ignoring the will, the established law, the budget control act limitations on spending that he agreed to and actually bragged about this is no way to get our country on a sound financial path. it's not any way to do it. let me point out one more thing,

this chart, before i go into that. they say that we are cutting spending. this is austerity, that america is cutting its spending. look at this chart. it's just a simple chart. in 19 -- in 2007, before we had the fiscal crisis, we were spending about $2.6 trillion in that year. in 2011, right before we signed this august budget control act agreement to limit the growth of spending -- only the growth. it didn't limit spending. it limited growth spending. we were spending about $3.5 trillion. and the c.b.o. baseline projects that in 2015 -- that's the year we are working on now, trying to prepare our budget and so forth, we are going to spend even more

than we spent then. so the spending is going up. we made a few adjustments to curtail the growth in spending, which is good, but really not enough to get us on a sound path, and the reason i assure you that we're not on a sound path is this chart that shows the interest we're going to be paying over ten years. so this is this year -- last year, 2013, and this is what they tell us we're going to be paying in interest in 2024. it goes up every single year. we're on an unsustainable path. you can't get something for nothing. julie andrews told us nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could, and it can't. and so -- so i'm flabbergasted, really. the most disappointing thing to me is i know now what we're going to see in the president's budget come next tuesday.

any hint at belt tightening is going to be gone. we're going to see proposals for massive increases in spending. oh, not spending. investments. that's what we're going to see, but we don't have the money and we don't have to damage america. we don't have to destroy our country. this is what we agreed to now that shows continual growth. not in the budget control act. we're going to see growth in spending every year. there is no reduction in spending. it's going to grow every year for the next ten years. but it won't grow quite as fast as if we didn't have a budget control act. and it looks like if we continue to have efforts to waive the budget and just spend above that, it will be even worse than this, the growth will be even greater.

i want to share one point and i will wrap up. the bill also relies on a budget gimmick. it claims that it's got some pay-for, that it's not all borrowing money, and it claims it's paid for, and it's really a gimmick that every honest observer has commented on, has just mocked it. it's the ocko gimmick. the bill proposes to reduce overseas con continue ten just operation programs used to -- contingency operation programs. o.c.o., overseas contingency operations. every penny of that is borrowed.

it's not in the regular budget. it's spent above that as emergency spending, war spending. that's how it's been done. for good or ill, that's the way it's done. we at least -- while i'm troubled by the president's policies with regard to iraq and afghanistan, it has -- the costs are coming down and they are projected to come down every year until we basically eliminate those costs. and it claims that reducing the amount of money we borrow to fund the war and support our military is somehow now available to spend on whatever the project of the day is. today it's veterans. it will be something else tomorrow. they have tried this before. it's ludicrous. it's like claiming credit today for the end of vietnam. we are not borrowing money to

fight the war in vietnam, so we can spend that money. this is how a great nation goes broke. so they will do this to the tune of $18 billion. that's what it's going to take to fund senator sanders' bill. the problem is the money was never going to be spent at this rate and it's not a real savings. every piece of legislation that the majority has tried to move since january has exceeded the levels that we have reached in the december agreement. unemployment insurance, the farm bill, flood insurance and now the veterans' bill. all of them spent above what we agreed to, colleagues. these measures represent critical needs. i know we want to do something about all of them and acknowledge that people have suffered and are suffering under the policies that promised to do

so much good but haven't. but the solution is not to abandon fiscal discipline. the solution is not to breach the agreements we reached just a few weeks ago to have some modest limitation on the growth of federal spending. so this approach has been widely derided by -- as a gimmick that the congressional budget office says this is not money, real money that can be spent. of course it's not. mr. elmendorf followed up with a letter to congressman paul ryan, our budget director, mr. elmendorf wrote this -- quote -- "establishing caps on discretionary -- discretionary appropriations in the future would not affect spending under current law and would not offset changes in direct spending or

revenues. further, appropriations for war-related activities have declined in recent years and may decline further as military operations in afghanistan wind down. caps on overseas contingency operations that are lower than base line projections might simply reflect policy decisions that have already been made and that would be realized even without such constraints. if policymakers believe that national security required appropriations above the capped amounts in future years, they would almost certainly provide emergency appropriations that would not under current law be counted under the caps." it just points out this is an unacceptable way to count money. experts on the federal budget have said the same. maya mcginns, a capable observer said using the war

gimmick to offset other costs or count toward deficit reduction would send a message to the american public and our investors that we are not serious about controlling the debt. in fact, it would send the message that not only are we not serious, but we're going to try to trick everyone that we're actually doing something productive on the deficit. that's the hyatt of -- height of irresponsibility, close quote. myra mcginns, a director at the committee for responsible federal budget, said that last november. so we're not going to go for this. we're not going to go for this. we're not going to waive the budget in this fashion.

it's not going to pass. and it should have been known beforehand when senator sanders and senator reed have sought to push this bill through that it's never going to pass. because there are enough senators in this body have enough strength of will to honor the commitment we made a few weeks ago in the ryan-murray legislation. and we're not going to use some bogus gimmick to justify busting the budget. so the deal is over. nada. it's not going to happen. and i don't expect and i will defend my commitment to veterans and seeing that they're treated fairly in this country. now, a lot of positive things we need to be doing in america. this is certainly not one of them. we need to figure out how to run this government on the spending increases that we've already agreed to. and, in fact, we need to reduce those increases more than we

have. otherwise, we're placing at risk our economy today, job creation today, and the future of our children. i would thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this morning to speak about two issues, the first will be on the matter that's before us, the veterans legislation. i'll also speak -- let me ask consent to speak as if in morning business on a separate topic and would ask that that appear at a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak about the legislation. i want to commend the work of

chairman searchedz and others who have brought us to this -- searntdz and others -- sanders and whose who have brought us to this point. we know have have a challenge to pass this legislation and the good news is that these issues are bipartisan, both parties have a real concern about what happens to our veterans, what happens to our veterans' families. we often have different pathways to get there, but i think we do have a bipartisan concern. but it's appropriate to start with -- with a reflection on what i think our obligation is as members of the united states senate but i think it's our obligation as citizens as well, and years ago i heard it expressed we often express it by using the word "worthy." when we consider what our veterans have done for us, it's important that we express gratitude in so many different ways and sometimes that's one on

one expressing to a veteran we appreciate their service, sometimes when there's a parade or another demonstration of public support for our veterans, that's important, but i think the question we have to ask ourselves both, again, as elected officials and as citizens, is the following -- are we doing everything we can to prove ourselves worthy of the valor of our veterans? and i think the answer to that question depending on what year it is or depending on what time period it is, will get different answers to that question. most of the time we like to believe that the congress is worthy of the valor of those veterans, that we're doing everything we can to help them. but we've got to be honest with ourselves and say that there are substantial periods of time when this body and the other body, both senate and house, not have

been worthy of the valor of our veterans because we haven't done the job to help veterans and their families. we hope, we pray that this can be one of those moments when we are proving ourselves worthy of the valor of those veterans. who served their country and they didn't ask the price, they didn't ask -- they didn't put down conditions, they just served their country and they ask us to enact legislation and policy that is commensurate with the sacrifice and the commitment that they made to their country. so it really is about keeping promises, and i hope we can be in one of those moments right now. the bill as across the country know, the bill improves v.a. health care coverage, it reauthorizes important job training programs for unemployed veterans and provides in-state

tuition benefits for all post-9/11 veterans through the g.i. bill. we know when you look at the unemployment data that some of the highest percentages for any sector or category are post-9/11 veterans. a much higher unemployment rate than the overall unemployment rate and even a higher unemployment rate than their fellow veterans. in this case for this bill, hundreds of people across pennsylvania have reached out to my office urging that the senate pass this bill. it has the support from various syrians service organizations including the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the american legion, and the v.f.w. just to name a few. i just wanted to address a couple of provisions in the bill, ones that are particularly significant to

pennsylvanians and some of the work that we've been doing. the v.a. in pittsburgh, v.a. health care system in pittsburgh had a terrible tragedy not too long ago where several people lost their lives, several veterans lost their lives while in the care of the v.a. health care system. there was a legion's -- legionnaire's outbreak, a problem in the water system and that terrible tragedy was obviously a devastating loss for those families, the -- not just the city of pittsburgh but all of southwestern pennsylvania was affected. so we're thinking of them today when we reflect upon some of the provisions in this bill. veterans and their loved ones need to feel confident and secure in the care that they receive at all v.a. health care

facilities and the failures -- there's no other way to describe them -- the failures that occurred at the v.a. in southwestern pennsylvania surrounding this outbreak of legionnaire's disease is in a word, unacceptable and, frankly, that's not a strong enough word to express the outrage that i felt and i know people across southwestern pennsylvania and beyond felt. so i worked to -- in -- led the introduction of legislation to deal with this. portions of what we worked on are included in this bill and we're very happy about that. specifically, the bill requires the v.a. to implement local and state reporting, reporting requirements of infectious diseases. the bill also requires that the v.a. develop performance measures to assess whether veterans -- whether the veterans integrated service networks and medical centers are

complying with these requirements. so we're happy that that's part of the -- part of the legislation. secondly, i just wanted to highlight another part of the legislation which is very important to me. fortunately it includes the corporal michael j.cresens act which senator toomey and i introduced last year. the bill renames the v.a. medical center on woodland avenue in philadelphia after corporal cresens. he was philadelphia's only -- the city of philadelphia's only medal of honor recipient from the vietnam war. just a quick description of why he was awarded the medal of honor for his service in vietnam. we know it's the highest honor that can be granted to any soldier. in this case, for his actions

in vietnam on november 20, 1968. his medal of honor citation states that he gave his life when he -- quote -- "left the relative safety of his own position, seized a nearby machine gun and with complete disregard for his safety, charged 100 meters up a slope toward the enemy's bunkers which he effectively silenced." it goes on to say the following -- "as a result of his heroic actions, his company was able to maneuver freely with minimal danger and to complete its mission, defeating the enemy"-- unquote. so we're grateful that his family will have some measure of peace of mind that his sacrifice and his service is remembered and i want to thank chairman sanders for including that in

the bill and i know senator toomey joins me in that note of gratitude. mr. president, i want to move to a separate subject which, as i asked, would be in a separate part of the record, and this is the -- just a brief discussion about the able act. which is a piece of legislation which has been the subject of enormous and substantial bipartisan support both here in the senate and in the house. we know that a lot of families have -- have relied upon and have really benefited from the so-called 529 plans, a section of the i.r.s. code which allows families to save tax-free for education. what we're trying to do with the able act is to replicate that process or that opportunity as is a better way to say it, so that families that have a loved one with a disability -- it may

be one disability or it may be more than one, but every family that has a loved one with a disability should have the opportunity to save just like they might for education in a tax-free manner, in a tax-advantaged way. so we've been working on this legislation for a number of years, senator richard burr, the senior senator from north carolina and i have led this effort in the senate and i said, it would build upon that 529 model for education. the able act enjoys the support of 63 united states senators, 63 cosponsors in the thousands it's up to 335 members of the house. so that's why we mentioned over 400 members of the congress agree, and that's why that hashtag pass the able act, exclamation point, is important to highlight.

there -- i should say there are few measures that come before the senate or the house that enjoy that kind of bipartisan support. in the senate, for example, there's no more than five bills that enjoy the support of 63 or more senators. so we're happy about that, but it's not -- we're not done yet. we still have a long, long way to go to get this legislation done. so as important as it is to highlight the numbers, it's also important to highlight the people that did the hard work to get us there. i'd like to be able to commend members of the house and the senate, but the ones who are worthy of even more substantial commendation would be a lot of individuals, some of whom are here in washington this week. the national downs syndrome society -- i was just with folks from the national downs syndrome